Michael Moore just tells lies.....simple as that......he was torn apart on TV the other night and just laughs it off because the American public is SO gullable to buy his BS
Ouch
Well here goes:
You are a PROVEN liar
You are a PROVEN hypocrit
You are a PROVEN bigot
You do not have the knowledge nor the sense to enter into the debate about science as it would be too high minded.
At some point, you would have to be exhausted from NOT thinking. "Wrong" is someone who is factually incorrect and really only applies to you rarely. However, not-too-smart is appropos because you have erred routinely in thinking (or the lack thereof). UDB and myself have regularly exposed your inability to critically think.
You still cannot claim I am wrong about the age of the Earth, Canuck...only that you disagree (even though you have no idea why) and that I am in a minority.
I know when you get frustrated, C...you resort to claiming I have an alias. The halls must be empty right now.
Thank you, Canuck, for proving my point.
You haven't the wherewithall to discuss science. Still need the support of others.
I proved those things and if I need, will show them again.
You should keep quiet here, Canuck. I will have to expose you again, to a new group of commentators.
Hey, Stream, i didn't know you believed in Bishop Usher's dating system? Really? But seriously, Canuck, once again you picked a bad vid to prove a mindless point. Tiahuanaco, high in the Andes, app 14,000 ft, has sea life in the rocks outside the city walls. Sea life has been found, of all places, at the 20,000 ft mark of Mt Ararat!!!! Every geologist knows there was a flood in the region of Mesopotamia. They just don't know if it was as worldwide as the OT says. probably not. And they sure don't know if was a guy named Noah his sons and two of each animal. That's probably religious folklore, but I suggest you get a copy of thr Epics of Gilgamesh (I think there's an Illustrated Classics version you might be able to handle). All the ancient peoples of the world, from your Assiniboin and Crees to the Mayas and Incas, the Egyptians, Middle east, ALL have a deluge legend based in fact, either the swamping of the MED or the Black Sea, most geologists agree. I only say this, for you need to compare that which the Bible states is both provable and PROVEN, versus what Darwinism preaches that is either provable or proven. NADA. Darwin and Wallace were both keen observers and good men, with no underlying political agenda, and had they ever known idiots like you would be running around misquoting them as much as Al Qaeda misquotes the Q'uran or some snot-eyed snake handling preacher in Tennessee did the Bible, they may just have forgone the whole pleasant experience. I'd give worlds if you could just say one thing that was right. Good God, you couldn't even apply for a job down here, as you'd never get your social security number right. People don;t like Moore for the same reason they don't like you...both are self-promoting liars. (The fact you're both fat doesn't even matter. Gore is a liar, Clinton is a liar, kerry is a liar, and none of those are well, too fat. "You don't agree with him?" is that the best you can come up with when a guy says 2 2=5? He's entitled to an opinion!!! Still, on issues you can only discuss, such as religion, you dismiss out of hand as if you had a special seat at the world's creation. Do you have idea how stupid that sounds...even to that circle-jerk you belong to on Glumbert? Lie to me once, next time I verify. Lie to me twice, I never bother to listen again. That;s a law of survival...except I suppose in your tiny world. You can yuk it up, but no one takes you seriously. I told you earlier, keep it Stupid, Simple, then no will care what you say. Try to get serios and someone will always step up to chop you off at the knees. Scatman
Cumchin - when you say that 2 plus 2 is 5, then not only are we perfectly at rights to not agree with you, but we are also perfectly within our rights to reassert that you are indeed the imbecile you seem.
The onus is on you to prove your statement otherwise and make us accept your view that 5 is the outcome.
You may rail and cry about proven fact within the bible - yes I wholeheartedly agree that proven fact may exist within it's confines - kinda makes sense in a book that's been continuously re-written and updated over time to keep itself current and ensure relevence to it's audience dontcha think my dear? Ever heard of retro-fitting my child?
Cum, before attempting to berate others - let us address your dumb comments in turn, and next time you come crying to us all that you gavel carry and state facts, then be in possession of the latter prior to tapping your little hammer...
Cumchin dribbles that *Sea life has been found, of all places, at the 20,000 ft mark of Mt Ararat!!!!* (nice use of exclamation marks there - really must prove your point which was what exactly?
1. Ararat is not that high, nowhere near - re-check then come back and tell us you're sorry
2. That fossil sea life is found in rocks at this hight is of no consequence and whilst some later sedimentary deposits ARE consistent with flooding, the vast majority are simply found at those hights as a result of plate techtonics and geological shift. The one thing you said of truth is that geologists ARE in agreement that major flooding events have taken place
Streamlined (because your girlfriend likes oming to your rescue, this is for your benefit too), these geologists also tend to agree that the layer of irridium is highly consistent with a mass extinction event thus blowing your 6k theory into the (flood) water...
2. Darwinian theory is not provable. Oh a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.... Sorry to burst your little bubble there but you're wrong and apparently show your hand in also prefering the ignorance of creationism...
I'll reuse some of the postings placed when dealing with other flat earthers...
Nothing in the real world can be proved with absolute certainty. However, high degrees of certainty can be reached. In the case of evolution, we have huge amounts of data from diverse fields. Extensive evidence exists in all of the following different forms (Theobald 2004). Each new piece of evidence tests the rest.
All life shows a fundamental unity in the mechanisms of replication, heritability, catalysis, and metabolism.
Common descent predicts a nested hierarchy pattern, or groups within groups. We see just such an arrangement in a unique, consistent, well-defined hierarchy, the so-called tree of life.
Different lines of evidence give the same arrangement of the tree of life. We get essentially the same results whether we look at morphological, biochemical, or genetic traits.
Fossil animals fit in the same tree of life. We find several cases of transitional forms in the fossil record.
The fossils appear in a chronological order, showing change consistent with common descent over hundreds of millions of years and inconsistent with sudden creation.
Many organisms show rudimentary, vestigial characters, such as sightless eyes or wings useless for flight.
Atavisms sometimes occur. Cumchin I know you are unaware of what this means so I'll explain for you. An atavism is the reappearance of a character present in a distant ancestor but lost in the organism's immediate ancestors. We only see atavisms consistent with organisms' evolutionary histories.
Ontogeny (embryology and developmental biology) gives information about the historical pathway of an organism's evolution. For example, as embryos whales and many snakes develop hind limbs that are reabsorbed before birth.
The distribution of species is consistent with their evolutionary history. For example, marsupials are mostly limited to Australia, and the exceptions are explained by continental drift. Remote islands often have species groups that are highly diverse in habits and general appearance but closely related genetically. Squirrel diversity (HAIL SQUIRREL - THE ONE TRUE RELIGION!!) coincides with tectonic and sea level changes (Mercer and Roth 2003). Such consistency still holds when the distribution of fossil species is included.
Evolution predicts that new structures are adapted from other structures that already exist, and thus similarity in structures should reflect evolutionary history rather than function. Cumchin - We see this frequently so please try not to magnify your stupidity
For example, human hands, bat wings, horse legs, whale flippers, and mole forelimbs all have similar bone structure despite their different functions.
The same principle applies on a molecular level. Humans share a large percentage of their genes, probably more than 70 percent, with a fruit fly or a nematode worm.
When two organisms evolve the same function independently, different structures are often recruited. For example, wings of birds, bats, pterosaurs, and insects all have different structures. Gliding has been implemented in many additional ways. Again, this applies on a molecular level, too.
The constraints of evolutionary history sometimes lead to suboptimal structures and functions. For example, the human throat and respiratory system make it impossible to breathe and swallow at the same time and make us susceptible to choking.
Suboptimality appears also on the molecular level. For example, much DNA is nonfunctional. Some nonfunctional DNA, such as certain transposons, pseudogenes, and endogenous viruses, show a pattern of inheritance indicating common ancestry.
Speciation has been observed - go research this then tell me I am wrong.
The day-to-day aspects of evolution -- heritable genetic change, morphological variation and change, functional change, and natural selection -- are seen to occur at rates consistent with common descent.
Furthermore, the different lines of evidence are consistent; they all point to the same big picture. For example, evidence from gene duplications in the yeast genome shows that its ability to ferment glucose evolved about eighty million years ago. Fossil evidence shows that fermentable fruits became prominent about the same time.
Genetic evidence for major change around that time also is found in fruiting plants and fruit flies (Benner et al. 2002).
The evidence is extensive and consistent, and it points unambiguously to evolution, including common descent, change over time, and adaptation influenced by natural selection. It would be preposterous to refer to these as anything other than facts.
Sorry to other posters but for Cumchin's benefit I thought she would like to read just a couple of points to ensure she carries out some more in depth research before blighting our lives with yet more drivel you silly little girl.
I dismiss no religion or spirituality - I dismiss utterly those who try to demean decent science with biased creationst science - the ultimate oxymoron if ever one existed.
So Chummin, a direct challenge at you, let's see how good you are when it comes to actually debating rather than bitching - If you wish to commence a debate on creationism, please do.
I will eat you for hors d'ouevres and use Streamlined as a dipper in my guacamole when he pipes up.
Chumm can't understand that! i mean if he tries to his small brain will implode.
The Reason these guys take the low road is the fact they fear what they can't understand!
If something doesn't make sense to them it becomes scary. So its either off to the Bible then come back at cha with their bizarre interpretation. or else chumm will start with his babbling about how great the idiot in the white house is ,,then calling every one a terrorist!
its really quite amusing.
It was a very well informed post, but frankly the addressee will not understand even a small fraction of it!
Oh, and by the way chumm, if Bugs sees you over here Mako and him will tag teaming your dumb ass! It would be a pleasure to watch you try to blither your bumbling self out of that!!
1) Yet again mako, you're using the same material that was just used on you. I know it's good, but c'mon, enouh already.
2) And just how does your telling bill to read your poem show myself to look like a fuckwit? Seems to be theo ther way around. Typical mako logic though. I may or may not be one, but you having a side conversation with soomeone else does not demonstrate me being one. That would need to involve me. Logic 101 mako.
Hi Mako...when you can't succinctly show that you understand, you try to dazzle with BS. (There are a couple here who want to believe you, so they do.) That is all you have done...gone to the internet, dug up some quotes, some Brittanica facts, and never have addressed what is known or even knowable.
This makes you a fool and a willing idiot.
It is not on me to convince anyone of what I believe. Again, you are putting your faith in something that would barely hold up as circumstantial. But, what should I expect from someone who has no idea where right and wrong come from...
I guess, just like evolution, it was the product of an adding on of information over time as man crawled out of the primordial ooze and started relating to himself and others...even though we have no reason to believe that either.
Mako child, do you even know that the very term species is hotly contested? Which definition do you use? That would make observing speciation...specious. But, of course you know that. Everyone knows that. You will just put your finger on your chin, drool a little and follow the herd.
Again, for the factually challenged, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FACTS ABOUT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION. (I further suggest you and a few others learn that, like all movements, those in Creation are not monolithic in their beliefs...but, they tend to be humblein that they refer to them as, beliefs. You will often times not see that kind of open humility when scientists fight over the Big Bang or Darwinian Evolution.)
There is no debate until an honest starting point can be taken by both. To that end, you are incapable...but, I will concede that you Google much much faster than me.
Mako...Chummin was off by 7K feet when referring to mountainous finds of oceanic creatures...but, hey, why would you want to argue facts.
When they find these fossils so high in the mountains and assume plate tectonics are at work...how do you explain the observable and contradictory erosion rates? Hmmm
If you wish to simply dismiss my post to you as BS, then that completes the picture I have of you sitting in the corner of your room, hands clasped over ears, rocking to and fro with your bible in your lap ...
With respect to this particular debate I know you don't like being made to look stupid but you can't seem to help yourself... This may sting a bit...
1. Darwinian Theory is not proven? Look Stream - I know you love trumpeting this in capital letters all the time but it gets tiring and makes you look a zealot (again).
As I said before NOTHING is absolutely certain, but MUCH MORE proven evidence points to Darwinian Theory being a better framework than Young Earth Creationism.
Your little tirade was pre-empted in my initial post above where I listed a few of the MANY areas where proven observations and evidence support Darwinian Theory. Oh! I forgot, you dismissed them as BS because they proved you wrong.
2. So now the 'species' argument... Yes I am aware the definition is under debate and has been for centuries. It's known as the 'species problem' because it's tough to define. Personally I go down a pluralist route.
The reason this debate exists is that if you know anything about evolution (and clearly you don't), species are expected often to have fuzzy and imprecise boundaries because evolution is ongoing. Some species are in the process of forming; others are recently formed and still difficult to interpret.
E-V-O-L-U-T-I-O-N at work I guess...
The complexities of biology add further complications. Many pairs of species remain distinct despite a small amount of hybridization between them. Some groups are asexual or frequently produce asexual strains, so how many species to split them into becomes problematical.
Creationist theory attempts to define things as "kinds" that were created once and for all. This implies that all "kinds" or species should be clearly demarcated and that there should be a clear and universal definition of "kind" or species.
Since this is clearly not the case, then creationism, not evolutionary theory, has something to explain...Want to make your beliefs look any more shaky there Stream?
Oh by the way, were you aware that new species HAVE been observed evolving...backed up with scientific factual observation? Do let me know if you refuse to believe this fact and I'll be your God and enlighten you.
3.Now onto debunking the crap you spew about fossils at high altitudes...
You said:
*When they find these fossils so high in the mountains and assume plate tectonics are at work...how do you explain the observable and contradictory erosion rates? Hmmm*
Quite simply. Erosion rates CAN vary over time/climate/geography/geology.
Is that simple enough for you?
Any argument which pretends that continents and mountains are inert lumps of rock subject ONLY to erosion is out of touch with reality. We need not consider it further. Or do you wish to dispute tectonics..?
Oh yes, nearly forgot! I was remiss in my earlier post in pointing out that Chummin made only one error. I should have said he made two...
Ararat is a volcano and as such is comprised of igneous rock, there are no fossils on Ararat itself.
Chummin's valueless assertion that fossils were found on the summit of Ararat is a Creationist myth based on the book "The Ark on Ararat".
I've no doubt it's on your bedside table Streamy...
Now I have an inkling of suspicion that the guys who wrote it may just have had a teensy-weensy agenda: John Morris, an officer and a "full professor of geology"at the Institute for Creation Research and a preacher called Tim LaHaye. Need I say more?
A direct quote from the book states:
*In common with many mountains around the world, Mt. Ararat exhibits fossil-bearing strata. Sedimentary rock (by definition laid down by flood [sic] waters) containing the fossilized remains of ocean creatures has been found as high as the snow line, approximately a 14,000-foot elevation"
The claim has been debunked. Google it and learn.
Now sedimentary fossilferous rocks ARE found near the peak of Everest, so following your belief system, and in the absence of tectonic shift, this must mean Everest was under water too during the flood right?
Is there not a height difference there Streamy?
Surely Ararat would therefore have been much, much deeper underwater dontcha think?
Or did Everest grow overnight with fossils put at the top to test our faith?
Yep - better get some good 'ol magic in there if your Creationist Science can't explain it...
Everest's apparently getting about 5cm taller per year as a result of plate tectonics by the way...Please tell me you don't refute tectonics as well??
4. Streamy you say that it is not down to you to convince anyone of your beliefs. Well why are you trying so hard? IT IS ABSOLUTELY down to you to convince us that Creationst science is anything but utter, utter faeces. Here's why...
Every primitive culture in the world has produced its own account of human origins, and so surely after you've "disproved" evolutionary theory you will then need to show superiority of your myth to the Native American story about Old Man Coyote, or the Chinese myth of the cosmic egg.
Boy are you gonna be busy...
If you want us to accept the notion that your supernatural science is to be taken seriously, then pray tell us how the Jewish "theory" is superior to the Egyptian "theory" that the world began with masturbatory activity on the part of the sun god?
You can't. Because once you abandon the canons of proof standard in the natural sciences and begin teaching creationist science bullshit as fact, you are then obligated to show that all other mythologies known are false.
The burden of proof ABSOLUTELY now rests with the creationists. Lead the way Streamy...
Streamy, why can you not explicitly to state the claims of creation science?
You almost always try and launch an attack on evolutionary theory instead. I guess the reason for this is simple: "scientific creationism" is religion, and you know it. To try and call Evolutionary theory a religion is both incorrect by definition, as well as incorrect by stupidity.
REAL scientists do not know for certain how an experiment will turn out until it is performed, and cannot be sure what they will find in nature until they have hypothesised, observed, verified, inferred, retested, reviewed etc.
Streamy's branch of creation science thinks they can start their "research" with the conclusions desired as per the Good Book, then look for possible supporting evidence - almost as an after-thought.
What really makes me chuckle is that YOU have the temerity to complain of dishonesty...!
Your entire little Creationist Crusade marches on with that intellectually dishonest argument banner held proud and high!
IGNOTUM PER IGNOTIUS
PS Barnsley - you obviously haven't evolved sufficiently. Don't worry - amoeba have a place in nature's plan. If you're lucky you may come back as a tapeworm next time around... They're parasites too so you'll finally have found your niche.
In the meantime you will remain a fuckwit. The Great Squirrel must be angry with ya!
We reach another place where it is important and instructive to remember what I have been arguing for and against.
I have NOT been arguing for Creationism. That is my personally held belief.
I HAVE been arguing against Darwinian Evolution (DE). (As Paul Davies has iterated, (and I paraphrase), Darwinian Evolution will have to be replaced with a completely different "conceptual model.")
I have NOT said there was no evidence (which requires interpretation) for DE.
I HAVE said that there is no proof, which does not require interpretation.
*I know that Mako still doesn't understand, but I will proceed anyway.
We all have the same data, but we have different starting points and assumptions, so we arrive at different interpretations.
(In a moment, Mako, I will show where DE should be at its end and materialists should be looking for another concept. But until then, a few observations.)
I coach young children all the way up to High Schoolers. There is a hallmark to juvenile ways of learning...it is typically devoid of thinking and critical thought. For example, as kids progrss through primary and secondary school their "smarts" are characterized by their ability to keep, retain and regurgitate information. As they get older, they must learn to critically think. This often times is painful, as what they have learned as kids is called into question as they critically think later as adolescent and adults. A hallmark of a juvenile is when that child will not let go of something they think is fact, when it doesn't stand up to logic or adult-like thinking.
Many kids are told something by someone who is an authority figure in their life and they, as little kids should do, accept it as Truth. Later, when told that it may not be true, a scary feeling, an insecurity in reality takes a hold of that child because letting go of that earlier "fact" means putting a crack in their foundations of reality.
So it is with DE'ists (No play on words intended). To acknowledge that DE is not true is not just giving way to another burgeoning scientific theorem that merits inquiry...it shakes the very foundations of who they are. Even though one does not have to be a Creationist to see DE is fatally flawed, one apparently has to suspend rational thought to accept it.
So, when I say you, MAko, are thinking like a child, that is why. Your arguments have all boiled down to: "I read it in an article/encyclopaedia/book/web page therefore it is true."
DE has run into (3) stumbling blocks that it cannot answer: Irreducible complexity, statistically insurmountable odds of randomness creating complex molecules, and random mutations creating new genetic information.
Mako-I do simply dismiss most of what you write as BS because you have not addressed the basics. You have said Creationism and ID is not science but cannot explain why. (You actually used the phrase "proven evidence." Thank you)
No, the reason there is a species problem is not due to evolutions ability to create new ones; but, does in fact show organisms genetic plasticity. Notice that there are horse species that cannot interbreed due to enough distance between them genetically. (See, we have the same data) But, and I hate to point out the obvious...they remain horses. To what degree can these animals differ, who knows. Pretty certain they won't grow scales, though.
Your understanding of the word "kind" is limited. "Kind" implies an original archetype, not an immutable source. Again, we know there is genetic plasticity (lions, tigers, etc) from a "kind"...farm breeding over the last 1000 years has shown that. Still, goats give birth to goats.
(BIG POINT: Until one creature gives birth to another, it ain't DE.)
Yes, erosion rates can vary. I notice you conveniently use that argument when it suits your premise. Unlike other dating methods which are clearly immutable. (Thank you, Mako)
But, onto a larger point...many of the mountains that are supposedly millions and millions of years old should have eroded down to not much by this point. Mako child, since other rocky outcroppings have eroded away, why haven't the others? (Wipe the drool from your chin now.)
I wasn't amking an argument for Ararat, but for tops of some mountains in general. With regard to Everest: you are in the logical quandry with a mtn that high, erosion rates as they are and plate tectonics. I am just fine with finding fossiliferous rocks up there.
(If Everst is receding due to PT (and it is), what does that say about uniformitarian geology?)
Mako...because of your unmatched ignorance, you have made all theories of Creation the same. This shows such a collosal willing stupidity that I am forced to answer your bigoted question: Not all Creation stories require their adherents to believe them. You must critically look at each religion, what it claims and how that differs from Christianity and Judaism. You have not.
Your last question is a religious one and implies your religious predicament. To acknowledge DE as broken would undermine your worldview, your eschatology. Mako, if it were simply a scientific idea that dispassionate scientists argued, then we would not be whining about competing ideas. From the looks of things, you ally yourself with the materialist zealots who would not allow ID in the science classrooms. (The Butler Act has come full circle.) This makesyou a coward as well.
I want DE in the science classroom as it is a staunchly debated hypothesis. But, unlike those on your side, I want all arguments on the table and let's see them stand on their own merits.
If DE has you to defend it, it won't last much longer.
You are stuck with the original 3 stumbling blocks of DE and remain so.
(Apologies to all for the length of the ensuing post – once more Streamy needs some learnin’)
Streamy, I see you've set aside this special time to humiliate yourself in public again...
Ok…so you’re NOT arguing FOR creationism but you ARE arguing against Darwinian Theory and attempting to use poor creationist science to disprove it.
Back to your time honoured tap out tango tactics again is it Stream? Getting yourself boxed in by your own narrow minded zealotry really does bring out the pedant in you doesn’t it??
Your agenda is clear – you wish to promote your belief in Creationist theory.
And now we both agree – Creationism is nothing but a belief. Phew! Thank Squirrel for that!
It is good to know that you AGREE there is evidence for Darwinian Theory. At least the hundreds of thousands of documents published in support have not gone to waste. Of course the world awaits Streamy and his new way!
Pray (and I really think you’ll need to), do publish something that passes peer review and we’ll see if you can turn accepted and substantiated science on its head.
Interesting to note that the tiny number of Creationist / ID papers which HAVE been published following peer review have not been built on any further. Instead they either go nowhere or have been rebutted. I guess the question is not WHY they have been rebutted but why there are so FEW that have got through the process…Why aren’t there more successful attempts if Evolution Theory is so weak?
And Creationism is a ‘burgeoning science’ you say…? Now your talking TOTAL bullshit.
All you can do is attack Darwinian Theory offering nothing else! It’s laughable, and getting boring. Some homework for you – tell me who said this:
"The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results"
Arguments from incredulity are behind ALL your positions on irreducible complexity, abiogenesis and intelligent design. You can’t conceive it therefore it doesn’t exist. Hear no evil, speak no evil etc…Or in your words:
”My bible explains it perfectly well thank you very much, and I can’t get my little head around the fact I’m so insignificant. My religious beliefs are so important to me but seem less to an increasing number of educated people…Somehow I must find a way to make things revolve around me and my belief system. Hmmm, I know…I’ll just say that this book contains everything I need to know about the entire universe, and I will use bad science to retro fit results that help ‘prove’ this book is true and recruit more to the flock”
So… to deal with your arrogant proclamation that 3 stumbling blocks exist,
Irreducible complexity fails as science. I’ve already explained this to you previously but yet you STILL keep bashing away from your pulpit:
Irreducible complexity can evolve. It is defined as a system that loses its function if any one part is removed, so it only indicates that the system did not evolve by the addition of single parts with no change in function. That still leaves several evolutionary mechanisms:
1. deletion of parts
2. addition of multiple parts; for example, duplication of much or all of the system (Pennisi 2001)
3. change of function
4. addition of a second function to a part (Aharoni et al. 2004)
5. gradual modification of parts
Even IF it prohibits Darwinian theory, the conclusion of ID does not follow. It’s back to the old ‘God of the Gaps’ as other processes may have caused it which you wish not to explore as they would also no doubt render Creationism irrelevant.
ID by the way is most certainly NOT science. In any way, shape or form. It is a subjective term devised simply to revive the Creationist agenda. Here’s why it ain’t science:
A scientific solution to a problem must address the parameters of the problem, Any theory about design must somehow address the agent (God) and purpose (Why), or it is not really about design. No intelligent design theorist has EVER included agent or purpose in any attempt at a scientific theory of design thus it is just irrelevant hand waving, as most of your rants tend to be.
Your second little trumpet call - That odds of complex molecules being randomly created are too huge (your little theory would put it at somewhere approaching 1 in 10 to the power of 113)
Notwithstanding the simple stupidity of saying this (argument from incredulity again) there are some basic faults in this Creationist crap:
The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. Complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions seen in space, and could have played a role in the formation of the first life – indeed the concept of panspermia is where I would probably lay my money on the genesis of life on earth.
It wouldn’t be an ark on top of Ararat
The calculation of odds also assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form but there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life. Your calculation does not
The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form as evolution is not something you can comprehend. The first life would have been very much simpler; probably a bit like you. The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously over billions of years…You still want the book to explain it all – it may do to you in the form of belief.
It doesn’t to those of a more scientific mind
Your third pillar of Streamyism; that of random mutations being unable to create new genetic information…It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Factor in billions of years as well…
Streamy – define the term ‘information’ for me… My guess is you’ll leave it undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shift it. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. A couple of examples for you:
1. increased genetic variety in a population
2. increased genetic material
3. novel genetic material
4. novel genetically-regulated abilities
Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection gives info about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which info about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism. So…again you’re talking crap Streamy.
Not quite sure what points you were making about plate tectonics and erosion rates – they seemed very contradictory. Erosion rates vary – nothing convenient about that because it’s:
Factual
Scientifically proven.
Not simply a belief
Your little diversion into teaching children was telling: why, if "smarts" are characterized by their ability to keep, retain and regurgitate information” did you then ask AGAIN why some rocks have eroded and others haven’t?
Erm… because… erosion… rates… vary.
Got that now? Can they grade SATs at dunce level?
Not sure you understood my point on Everest either. You are fine with finding fossilized sea creatures near the summit of a mountain nearly twice the height of Ararat?
Can my little resident creationist scientist please tell me how deep the flood was?
And for how long does he believe it lasted?
Are you a Young Earth Creationist of the full global flood variety?
Tell me what science backs this up?
I don’t know how many times you need to be told this Streamy but creationist theory is simply not science. That is the bottom line. And because of this, you will struggle to find any right minded person to condone the idea of it being taught as part of the scientific curriculum. You say you are not arguing FOR creationism yet seem still to be trying.
You mention that I keep saying (correctly I might add) that Creationism is not science without saying why. Thought this had been dealt with many times…The teaching of creationism does not belong in science classes because creationism has no science to teach. It is based on personal religious belief, not on evidence. For the most part, creationism can fit with anything it wants to find, making it unscientific. Where creation models do make specific predictions that can be tested against evidence, they fail the tests. Asking for equal time is asking for nonscience to be taught in science classes
I have stated that Creationism CAN be taught in schools, but, and this is the important bit which I know you don’t like hearing:
UNTIL IT COMES UP WITH SCIENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIMS AND NOT MYTHOLOGY IT SHOULD REMAIN A THEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
If creationism should be the subject of scientific teaching then surely so should God? Likewise, if creationism should take a place at the table of science, so then it follows that evolutionary theory should be given time during a church service right?
You say we have the same data but different starting points and assumptions. You are absolutely right there. But there are subtle and very important differences:
You attempt to interpret some of the data which good science has described in order to fit BOTH your starting point AND your assumption that the world was created in 6k years.
Where no good science exists (and there’s very little to be found in Creationism) then simple bad science will do as long as it’s padded with enough bullshit to befuddle the masses
Creationism already thinks it has a result because the bible says so, you just need to bend science so you can ring the church bells loud and say that science has reconciled itself with religion and the two are one. Never gonna happen!
Oh, and your response that I have made all Creationist theories the same was incredibly weak. You did not address the fact that you would claim Creationism as the defining explanation whilst effectively dismissing other stories.
In truth there are a lot of Christians out there who probably don’t believe in the literal version of Creationism. You are a rather more fundamentalist in your views so would you have these moderates burnt at the stake for heresy?
In a nutshell Streamy, the only reason you wail and bitch so much is because you think that refuting Creationism implies I refute your belief in God. I do not. Believe away. Believe in Creationism too but PLEASE stop trying to turn belief into something scientific. It’s not.
When a sufficiently credible hypothesis presents itself as an alternative to Darwinian Theory then BY ALL MEANS we have a duty as a race to debate it. Creationism is so hilariously NOT that alternative that I only debate you here (and once more I apologise to other posters who have better things to do) in order to counter the absolute idiocy you post herein
Darwinian Theory is one of the most strongly supported theories in all of science. Since Darwin, the theory of evolution has only gotten stronger. Prior to the development of evolutionary theory, almost 100 percent of relevant scientists were creationists. Now the number is far less than 1 percent. The numbers continue to drop as the body of evidence supporting evolutionary theory continues to build.
Evolution is almost certainly the most hated scientific theory in history. Many like you think it threatens morals, civilization, and their very souls, and simply don’t want it to be true. You fall within this category
Starting from the first day that Origin of Species was published, it has faced constant challenges from some of the most powerful politicians and religious leaders, not to mention incessant disapproval and attacks from the general public.
The only thing evolution has going for it is the evidence.
If that evidence were not extremely strong, evolution would have been torn to shreds decades ago. It hasn’t been, and you are failing to do so here.
All good scientists are skeptical about evolution (and everything else) and open to the possibility, however remote, that serious challenges to it may appear. You seem to think such expressions of healthy skepticism imply that evolution is highly questionable yet you fail to understand that evolution has withstood many years of such questioning. You also bring no serious challenge despite what you may think about yourself
None of your supposed stumbling blocks have caused anything other than for people to tread around for the unabashed bullshit they are
In honesty I don’t really need to defend Evolution, although I like doing so if only to stir up the bile and vitriol which I know resides in you. You’re a funny little God Botherer and continue, with each of your fundamentalist Christian rants, to paint an ever clearer picture of stultifying arrogance and posturing.
You really are a special needs fuckwit of intergalactic proportions. Not only that, but a pompous one as well.
PS Your supposed BIG POINT about one creature giving birth to another is so incredibly inane that it warrants no response. It simply illustrates your innocence about the whole subject – keep groveling at the gates of AiG there, someone may let a failed zoologist in.
Once upon a time,
On a thread within Glumbert.
There was a tiny fish, Mako,
Who's little fish brain hurt and hurt.
He thought long and hard about
Writing long-winded tracts.
But his tiny little brain
Struggled and struggled with Facts.
This little fish thought himself
A fierce shark.
But, childish ways of thinking
Kept him in the Dark.
Convincing all others in
The Glumbert Sea,
That he is the smartest,
The smartest one can be;
Was his daily pursuit for
Which he would plea:
"Listen, please listen, Oh Listen to me!"
But Mako ignored all signs
In plain sight,
He just yelled, "I am smartest!"
With all of his might.
All takers were met with
That familiar refrain:
"You dissenters are lunatics
And I will explain..."
And explain he did,
I gusty old form.
Words rained down
Like a furious storm.
Over and over
He preached to the choir,
The pitch in his voice,
crying higher and higher:
"Won't somebody please
Come tell me I'm smart?!"
The need for acceptance
Bellows deep in his heart.
But, Mako, if you
Think Streamlined a boor,
By Darwin's drowned Beagle,
Why argue anymore?
"Because I must, at all costs
Show the world I am smart.
I'll recite what I can,
'Cause I know it by heart."
"Whether it's True is a matter
That's literally
Left to a consensus
Of those just like me."
Oh come now dear Streamy,
Stop being so trite
Can't you answer my questions?
Will you fight the good fight?
Once our paths crossed, you've been owned yet again
Not even a snippet of sense do you bring
To an argument ancient, but couched in a truth
That creationist science is nothing but spoof.
Nice attempt by the way Streamy, but I think you've done better before
6/10
Now, where's that guacamole dip...ah...there it is...
Plunges Streamlined headfirst into the tasty green gunk, the rantings and wailings are swiftly muffled...
Just because we have a different thread, doesn't mean I am going to rehash what has been pointed out before.
We can see that, from other posts, you have a gross lack of understanding about science but you do have solid rhetoric. A LOT OF IT.
You move under a number of false assumptions: that, one can prove anything on a web post. (Just because you cite a source, doesn't make it true. Sowed that many times over with Canuck.); that, the working model of may scientists is the default positio that DE is true. That was the same problem with heliocentric scientists a thousand years ago. It was doctrine, not science; that, you understand what you belch; that, evidence is the same as fact; that, negative argumentation is invalid because the alternative is yet to be shown. (Mako honey, if I am accused of a crime and provide an alibi, you would dismiss the alibi because I did not produce the correct criminal.); that, because it is concensus it is so.
Child, there are more. But it is important to point out why I refer you a child:
You desperately will want the last word (that has been proven), your desperation in convincing others of your smarts (this is still part speculation on my part but if you truly believe that I am a joke and that my beliefs are to be dismissed, you clearly lack the adult fortitude to do so. Of course, the alternative is possible as well: That you are standing on very very shaky ground and are grasping violently at your dying materialism that has, up to recently, served you well. Only time will tell.), your constant and proud references to your bowel movements (I am sure your mother is proud of your poopies, too), your reliance on innuendo and asumption to buttress your bigotry (I refer to the list of things you concluded about me...you lso use this so that other readers will see thebrilliant insight that you have.)
I am done for now.
No, don't read your posts anymore, child. They are too long and full of nothing.
I anxiously await your last word here. I know you must have it.
Zis is a kvite interesting video. I haf two kvestions.
EIN - Is it being suggsted zat ze Italian mayor is also copulating vith his dog?
ZWEI - Und vot caused zis man Moore's amusing speech impediment? Vos he struck in ze mouth by an enraged puritan?
I saw ein book by Moore on ein shelf in Frankfurt Airport called "Downsize This". I sink it is ze man himself who should be downsized. He is fatter zan Goering! Vot a disgrace. Is he not from somevere near Canada? I sot everyone vos as fit as ein butcher's dog zere.
Ze satire vill not vork ven it is carried out by big fatties. Only sin satirists are successful. Look at Goebells. He vos sin. Und, despite his unfortunate end, he could make ze smart jokes vith ze best of zem. Goethe - he vos like ein vippet, und, by ze tail of ze Great Skvirrel, he could poke ze fun at even ze devil himself.
Vake up Yankees! Put zis Moore man on ein diet!
(Although this is an old one, from his short-lived TV series "The Awful Truth". Still, the man has a great knack fro stirring up debate, especially with the release of "SICKO".)
On an unrelated note....it's finally happned boys!!:
This morning, the Canadian dollar not only reached par with the U.S. dollar, BUT ACTUALLY SURPASSED IT, and for the first time since November, 1976 is worth MORE than the greenback, as of 14:49 hrs. EST!!! UN-FREAKIN-BELIEVABLE!!!!
Screw this!!
I'm packin' the kiddies up, and goin' to DISNEYLAND!!!
LOL
Jesus, the last time this happned, I wuz 13 years old....John Travolta showed up in a little movie called "Saturday Night Fever"....Jimmy Carter just got elected President of the U.S........and the Toronto Blue Jays started their FIRST season.
That's great news. maybe they'll quit coming down here and taking our Mexicans' jobs. Third shift renta-gun-toter openings are still all over America, Tweedle. Dispatchers and other clock watchers too.
Did you mean Tater or Tatler, couldn't make it out, Sheezus-sister-of Bushbeans? He (wrathofGod) sounded sort of made up and store bought, don't you think...sort of like the teats on a 2004 Playboy Bunny. It's a sin to die with a mock of God on your lips.
michael moore is a man of fool. if he was smart business man like in khazasktan, he would have women in cage and they must pay to be entertained by man. there is much profit to be had.
you people who are saying Giuliani should go after Moore and that Moore should "give it a rest"...do you realize this is a clip from his show "awful truth" from 1999? Come on people, smarten up.
.....is that if the folks around here can stop hating him long enough, they'd realize this. But considering the man ain't been sued or PROVEN wrong about ANYTHING in his films (whereas his critics have been wrong about EVERYTHING), I'd say it speaks volumes (lemme see: one Oscar; one Palm d'Or...yeak, I'd say he's got some credibility).
So to all his "critics" out there, I'd like to quote YOUR hero:
Canuck- You need to look a little harder. He has been proven wrong, a liar and a fraud many times over. You do not want to see it...See no evil, Hear no Evil, Canuck.
I have shown you the people, places and sources that expose BM in all his corn-kerneled glory.
Just sip this Kool-Aid, Canuck...the antidote is best when given time.
canuck......give the fox news thing a rest----ok, what you say is true.
but michael moore is just as bad....come on, admit it.....the worst part is that because he says it with such authority, some people actually believe it (evidence: sicko stuff that he just made up)
fox is a point of view (a very distorted point of view, but it is a point of view)......michael moore is just lies
How does a guy who wins an Oscar, and a Palm d'Or...."make stuff up"??
And if he "makes stuff up"...how come no one has ever sued him for misrepresentation....slander...libel...etc.?
The only thing his critics have EVER done, is to take cheap smear shots at him. I'm not saying I agree with everything the man does (the video clip above is an example...this was done in his smart-ass days, but he has since "matured as a film maker" (THAT is an exact quote from FOX, re: his latest documentary SICKO...does THAT tell you anything?? It's probably the ONLY accurate thing they've ever "reported").
But in his last three documentaries, he always brings up graphs, documents, actual voice-recordings, reliable persons being interviewed, etc....and what's the ONLY two things his critics EVER say about him?:
1. He's "fat".
2. He "makes stuff up".
I think it's rather obvious by now, that he inspires such hatred and animosity amongst them, for a very simple reason:
Richskin- Canuck is mad because BM (Big Michael) is not taken seriously anymore. Too many are aware that he is a liar and fraud and that makes Canuck sick. In this area, he cannot feel like he is part of an elite group of people who are smarter than eveyone else.
The Truth shall set you free, Canuck, like one big mental enema.
Well, Mr. Wise-ass-6,000-years-ago-Right Winger, anytime you want to tell me where I'm wrong in what I've said above, go right ahead. Otherwise, keep posting stupid comments like you just did, and keep proving I'm right.
And another thing (yeah, I'm on a roll)...
in "Farenheit 9/11", Moore did a great job in FACTUALLY exposing the business connections between the Bush Familia Crime Family, and the bin Laden Family; all the Bushies went crazy, but no one could put a dent in this argument.....to this day. This is pretty amazing, when you consider something else: George Bush Jr.'s GRANDFATHER, Prescott Sheldon Bush, was a Wall Street executive banker with "Brown Brothers Harriman"...and guess what? THIS PUKE WAS HAPPILY DOING BUSINESS WITH THE THIRD REICH!!! Oh......and it gets better, Mr. I-Support-Corrupt-Bastards....MUCH better:
Business transactions with Germany were NOT illegal when Hitler declared war on the United States on December 11, 1941, but, six days after the attack on Pearl Harbor, Presiden Roosevelt signed the "Trading With the Enemy Act", after it had been made public that U.S. companies were doing business with the declared enemy of the United States.
The Harriman business interests seized under this act in October and November 1942 included:
Union Banking Corporation (UBC) (for Thyssen and Brown Brothers Harriman). The President of UBC at that time was George Herbert Walker, Bush's father-in-law (I won't even get into how many blood-soaked shares this traitor had, in this little venture).
Why is it that the ENTIRE Bush Family of PRICKS, has a LOOOOOONG history, of doing business with scumbags who are in the habit of killing Americans???
But someone like Michael Moore is THE BAD GUY......right?
Sometimes I swear, I TRULY don't know what to make of you.
Canuck
The Oscars and Palm D'or awards are not for telling the truth. But, because you worship at the feet of those people, you would easily confuse the issue.
So, when BM cuts and splices film parts from different events to give the impression of one event, that's ok with you? (Wait, of course it is...lying to make a point is fair game, C.)
Dude, unlike the past, I will not send you to the links that completely destroy his "factual" claims...most people here know and are not impressed by BM anymore. He is and shall forever be, old news.
My biggest problem with people like you is that BM has been exposed. He is a known liar and fraud...and yet you defend him. He is heading into obscurity right now and towing you along.
With regard to WW2: Please know the context of which you argue. Do you even know how hard it was to convince people during WW2 that Hitler was bad? It did not happen overnight and yes, some people fought hard to keep their business ties alive. (If you ever owned a Volkswagen, by your logic, you are a Nazi supporting traitor.) This is where you leave sane discourse and enter the realm of stupidity. What were your grandfather's dealings, C? Any dirty laundry there? I am sure it makes you dirty as well, bigot.
Real quick, waht were the business ties to Bin Laden did GWB have?
Hey, Stream, i didn't know you believed in Bishop Usher's dating system? Really? 6000 years? But seriously, Canuck, once again you picked a bad vid to prove a mindless point about Creationism. The flood? Tiahuanaco, high in the Andes, app 14,000 ft, has sea life in the rocks outside the city walls. Sea life has been found, of all places, at the 20,000 ft mark of Mt Ararat!!!! Every geologist knows there was a flood in the region of Mesopotamia. They just don't know if it was as worldwide as the OT says. probably not. And they sure don't know if was a guy named Noah his sons and two of each animal, built an ark and floated around. That's probably religious folklore, but I suggest you get a copy of thr Epics of Gilgamesh (I think there's an Illustrated Classics version you might be able to handle). All the ancient peoples of the world, from your Assiniboin and Crees to the Mayas and Incas, the Egyptians, Middle east, ALL have a deluge legend based in fact, either the swamping of the MED or the Black Sea, most geologists agree. Big damn flood! I only say this, for you need to compare that which the Bible states is both provable and PROVEN, versus what Darwinism preaches that is either provable or proven. NADA. Darwin and Wallace were both keen observers and good men, with no underlying political agenda, and had they ever known idiots like you would be running around misquoting them as much as Al Qaeda misquotes the Q'uran or some snot-eyed snake handling preacher in Tennessee does the Bible, they may just have forgone the whole pleasant experience. I'd give worlds if you could just say one thing that was right. Good God, you couldn't even apply for a job down here, as you'd never get your social security number right. People don;t like Moore for the same reason they don't like you...both are self-promoting liars. (The fact you're both fat doesn't even matter. Gore is a liar, Clinton is a liar, kerry is a liar, and none of those are well, too fat.) "You don't agree with him?" is that the best you can come up with when a guy says 2 2=5? He's entitled to an opinion!!! Still, on issues you can only discuss, never prove or disprove, such as religion, you dismiss beliefs out of hand as if you had a special seat at the world's creation. Interesting most scientists aren';t nearly as suer as you are. Only the political scientists, with an agenda. Do you have idea how stupid that sounds...even to that circle-jerk you belong to on Glumbert? Lie to me once, next time I verify. Lie to me twice, I never bother to listen again. That;s a law of survival...except I suppose in your tiny world. You can yuk it up, but no one takes you seriously. I told you earlier, keep it Stupid, Simple, then no will care what you say. Try to get serious and someone will always step up to chop you off at the knees. Scatman
Thanks, Scatman
I know I am in the minority on the age of the earth thing. I stand on firm ground, though.
My larger points have been thoroughly shown with regard to these things:
1. Canuck only knows what he reads on the web
2. He only believes what he reads if it already supports his worldview.
3. He and others cannot tell the difference between "fact" and "opinion".
4. I know what I believe currently has spotty scientific evidence. I have never claimed otherwise.
5. Those that blindly support current materialist worldview don't know or can't admit the same (and in many cases, much worse) damnable lack of evidence for what they believe.
6. Western Civilization is being crippled by people who cannot think critically of the things they believe.
I'll stop here.
Thanks for the admonishment against arguing with fools. I have to say that I only do so for my amusement. Canuck et al are a lot of fun and they keep me on my toes. I hope they can say the same.
“Moore’s film suggests that [President] Bush has close family ties to the bin Laden family – principally through [President] Bush’s father’s relationship with the Carlyle Group, a private investment firm. The president’s father, George H.W. Bush, was a senior adviser to the Carlyle Group’s Asian affiliate until recently; members of the bin Laden family – who own one of Saudi Arabia’s biggest construction firms – had invested $2 million in a Carlyle Group fund. Bush Sr. and the bin Ladens have since severed ties with the Carlyle Group, which in any case has a bipartisan roster of partners, including Bill Clinton’s former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt. The movie quotes author Dan Briody claiming that the Carlyle Group ‘gained’ from September 11 because it owned United Defense, a military contractor. Carlyle Group spokesman Chris Ullman notes that United Defense holds a special distinction among U.S. defense contractors that is not mentioned in Moore’s movie: the firm’s $11 billion Crusader artillery rocket system developed for the U.S. Army is one of the only weapons systems canceled by the Bush administration.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
“There is another famous investor in Carlyle whom Moore does not reveal: George Soros. But the fact that the anti-Bush billionaire [Soros] has invested in Carlyle would detract from Moore’s simplistic conspiracy theory.” (Dave Kopel, Independence Institute, “Fifty-nine Deceits In Fahrenheit 9/11,” http://i2i.org/ Accessed, 07/11/04)
There's one Bible verse in Proverbs that is worth noting Stream. Can't remember the verse, but it says you should never debate fools. makes sense, in light of all of the above. How many ways do you have to hand a guy his ass, and he's too stooppid to even know he ain't got one anymore? He's officially an invalid now...no ass, no brain, no guts, no spine..only a soul, and bless his heart, you and Flagg are the only ones who will pray for it. His mates won't. I should, but I won't either, sorry. I can't pray for Takfiri-symps. Have a good one, Cheers, mate
Did ya catch all FOUR parts to that youTube video?
I'll understand if ya didn't.....because of all that brain-numbing SCIENCE in it.
It's kinda hard to argue with "logic" and a silly thing called "numbers"....ain't it? It would force someone to "think critically".....or in YOUR case....to RE-THINK critically.
(shot to the solar plexis, followed by a roundhouse....and finished off with a vicious uppercut......START COUNTIN', REF!!)
Michael Moore is a badass. He doesn't give a fuck about america or politics. He makes up lies and people buy it. He does it for the money and hes making bank. He has made $75 million on his movies.
Canuck...I am laughing so hard at you. Seriously, you make this so much fun.
Keep selling stupid, my man...not many are buying it.
Liar: Claimed to have read the Constitution that you claim you were quoting...looking back that was really funny. I shouldn't expect too much from you since your entire adult education has been taught to you by "Google".
Hypocrit: Your rugburns were exposed when you touted Clinton's humanitarian rationale for going to war in Bosnia, suggesting it was a good one for America's military and then denied (this would also include lying) there was such a rationale in the lead-up to Iraq. I know you hate GWB, but you were definitely not on your best game with this particular line of silliness.
Bigot: The routine assumptions and stereotyping of Christians, creationists, southerners and anyone you feel yourself superior.
Buddy...these are facts. I know you and others struggle with 'fact', 'opinion', and 'truth'...but, I thought it instructive to show you at least 3 proveable and demostrable facts.
You divulged that personal information b/c of your stupdity and eagerness to try to impress. When you lost on logic, you treid to bring the personal plea inot it. There's absolutely no reason or relevance as to why stream or anyone should offer up personal info to potential psychos on an anonymous, for fun, discussion thread on the internet. Fool
So Streamy, I can ascertain the following about you:
Christian New Earth Creationist
Southern stater
Est. early 40s
Caucasian
Single
Part time PE teacher
Neo-conservative Republican (possibly plays an active role in politics, restricted to handing out leaflets and putting up posters on the run up to elections)
Sociopath
C'mon Streamy - how close am I?
Would I be overstepping the bounds of survey decency in asking whether you've ever been laid?
Sorry if you feel it does - I guess the tone and manner of many of your posts suggests that this has not yet happened to you.
Still I guess that doesn't make you anything other than a 'Leave Britney Aloner'
OH GOOD LARD...is this fat bitch still around?! I saw one of his movies...the Columbin one...this guy is full of deep fried shit. He's got balls tho.
But, if he says hes got balls, then he probably doesnt
As I stated a couple of threads ago, canuck is also a proven liar when it comes to the world of glumbert aliases. He said that it was okay for billboat to have the lordandmaster alias since at least he was honest about it and came out without being confrotned or asked about it. When I found the evidence to the contrary, billboat himself admitted that he denied having the alias. Cancuk didn't have a word to say about being caught in the lie. While not as important as hie lies and contradictions on these other matters, it illustrates that canuck is prone to lying to save face. He's too stupid of course to know that the compound lies maek him look worse. I actually don't think he sets out to lie, he's just so intent on trying to look good by getting his babble out there quickly that he puts flawed positions out. Once caught out, rather than admittign his mistakes, he either lashes out or digs himself deeper with compounding lies and unreliable sources.
To give him credit stream, in addition to google, he also likely reads the paper as a nightwatchman.
Well it appears that I now have a stalker. Excellent! Go back to sleep and have another nightmare about me mako.
Poor, poor mako. No one reads or comments on his poems and therefore he gets no praise. All that hard work What a shame. His insecurities then compel him to reference his poem to his apparent friends much later. "Hey guys, look what I did! Please, please go take a look."
Ah, the hypocrisy of the republican party, family values in front, but a close full of the most obscene acts in the behind.
I like rudy as a republican, hes a bit more sane than the rest of them and makes sense on a lot of issues, but in all honesty, he should be a democrat
Memo To: Streamlined
Chairman and CEO of Streamlined Visionaries Inc.
From: The Law Firm of Holdem, Hackem and Hackem
Subject: Plagiarism (i.e. use of previously copyrighted verbage and/or
style)
Sir/Madam:
As the barristers/solicitors acting on behalf of Canuck1963 Industries, we have noted that you have recently incorporated the response of "Yup", towards a socially-handicapped and obsessed individual.
Putting aside for a moment your personal taste in acquaintances (which is niether our, nor our clients' concern), the phrase "Yup" when used as a response, or acknowledgement of agreement, has already been established by our client, and this style is specifically established and copyrighted by same. For you to do so, in our legal opinion, sets a poor example for not only yourself, but to developmentally-arrested persons who crave your attention, as is this case.
We suggest you create a "style" of your own, or simply continue in whatever manner you've already established (whatever this may be).
We trust that this emulation was accidental, and not deliberate, and you will conduct yourself accordingly in the future.
And there goes more canuck time spent at the computer instead of with the kids. Social Services would have taken them away from you down here. They deserve a father who pays attention and acts like an adult and figurehead.
Remember the quality of the threads is directly proportional to the quality of the vids!
Plus as a counterfoil to Streamlined's perverse reverse science you kick arse, so another reason to stay! Actually this should be considered a duty! :-)
Cheers - there were no comments getting to me - just makes sense to spend some more time with the kids now and then instead of on the computer. Obviously as I am here again I have managed my guilt enough to return. Kind of a habit now.
I luuuvvvv that song....just wish i had an addiction....wait....maybe i do.....could it be....nah...maybe...no way, eh.....oh my squirrel.....i'm addicted to glumbert.....aaaahhhhhhhhhh!
Comments (202)